More Than a Threat

In the aftermath of the November 24, 2013 interim deal to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, which is called the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), Americans bear witness to an Iranian regime that has supported international terrorism while waging war against the United States and Israel since 1979. We see Secretary of State John Kerry purposefully and knowingly paving the way to ensure that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, while Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet, long "to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past." And, properly, America heard Benjamin Netanyahu reiterate that "Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

Vali Nasr, dean of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, released one of the most naive and idiotic statements in regards to the deal among the U.S., Western powers, and Iran. He suggested that Iran might now be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement in Afghanistan between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Does anyone really believe that Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Islam -- the mother of all totalitarian theocracies -- keep Iran in a stranglehold?

For 444 days, the islamoNazis of Iran held Americans hostage after deposing the shah, and the attacks against the U.S. continued into the present. Eighty-five percent of the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq in 2004 were furnished by Iran, according to Lt. General Moshe Ya'alon, former Israeli Defense chief of staff. Thirty thousand Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force were actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq; throughout the Afghanistan War, these same forces formed hunter-killer teams for the sole mission of killing U.S. soldiers, according to the 5th Special Forces command hierarchy.

And when will Iran's proxy "holy warriors" of Hezb'allah ever be brought to a day of reckoning for the murders of 283 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983? One must wonder over President Ronald Reagan's decision not to mount a swift retaliation -- the only real failure of his presidency.

Now it is surreal to see John Kerry as the chief negotiator striving to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, when this is the same radical antiwar activist who never met an enemy of the United States that he didn't like. Kerry should be criminally charged for not registering as an Iranian agent, because he advocated giving Iran nuclear fuel during the first presidential debate in 2004, as "a test" of Iran's "true intentions." And this is especially egregious in light of Hassan Nemazee, top Kerry fund-raiser and alleged "agent" for Iran, stating in a 2004 deposition that he "would not trust this regime [Iran] on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program."

Last week, Ruhollah Hossinian, a hard-line lawmaker, stated, "It [the JPA] practically tramples on Iran's enrichment rights." This is reminiscent of 2006, when the U.N. Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programs or face sanctions. On August 31, Iranian then-president Ahmadinejad, in a televised appearance, stated, "They should know that the Iranian nation will not let its rights be trampled on." And by March 2007, Iran had added 3,000 new centrifuges capable of manufacturing weapons-grade uranium to its facilities at Natanz.

The New York Times characterized the JPA as "a chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East," although it really entails virtually the exact same policies America has witnessed liberal Democrats employ for decades. In 1979, A.Q. Khan, a nuclear physicist, gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, under the careless watch of Zbigniew Brzezinski; Khan promptly proliferated this technology, first to North Korea, and then to Iran, along with blueprints of a Chinese-designed warhead. Madeleine Albright failed to halt Kim Jong-il's nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, and now we see Obama and Kerry falling in line with the advocates of appeasement.

What does it mean to Iran's mullahs that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to concede an Iranian "right" to enrich uranium? Absolutely nothing. The mullahs want nuclear weapons and a dominant position throughout the Middle East more than they desire peace and prosperity for their people, so no amount of sanctions will achieve a satisfactory result.

Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents. Iran's Shahab-4 missiles have a 2,500-mile range and can carry biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads. The destruction of these sites would seriously cripple Western power, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

How many times and in how many different ways do we have to hear Iran's leaders state their intent to destroy "the Great Satan" -- America -- and "the Little Satan" -- Israel -- before we take their words to heart?

Make no mistake. President Hassan Rouhani is not at all different from his predecessors, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he couches his statements in ambiguous and subtle nuances, ultimately he hopes to foist an Iranian Islamic nightmare on the world.

A few years after taking power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei said: "I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

The JPA is merely another delaying tactic for Iran's mullahs, who are just mere weeks away from seeing their goal come to fruition. And despite all the best efforts of those like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who asserts that "strong sanctions ... brought Iran to the table," Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.

The world stands at a critical crossroads, and unfortunately, the only real solution is a war to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and possibly remove a rogue regime from power -- one that should have been targeted long before Iraq or Afghanistan. Rife with cohorts to the jihadists desiring negotiations, no matter the cost, the Obama administration will not answer this call, and Iran fully realizes this due to Obama's "red line" failure with Syria. The weight of this solution, unfairly and even more unfortunately, sits on the shoulders of Israel.

In the early 1930s, many viewed Hitler's Mein Kampf as just rhetoric, although he clearly had laid out his program to exterminate the Jews. Sixty-one million deaths, including six million Jews, lay at the feet of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement plan, because, as so eloquently stated by Winston Churchill, the world lacked the "democratic courage, intellectual honesty, and willingness to act." Let America and the world not make this same mistake again with Iran.

In the aftermath of the November 24, 2013 interim deal to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, which is called the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), Americans bear witness to an Iranian regime that has supported international terrorism while waging war against the United States and Israel since 1979. We see Secretary of State John Kerry purposefully and knowingly paving the way to ensure that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, while Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet, long "to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past." And, properly, America heard Benjamin Netanyahu reiterate that "Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."

Vali Nasr, dean of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, released one of the most naive and idiotic statements in regards to the deal among the U.S., Western powers, and Iran. He suggested that Iran might now be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement in Afghanistan between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Does anyone really believe that Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Islam -- the mother of all totalitarian theocracies -- keep Iran in a stranglehold?

For 444 days, the islamoNazis of Iran held Americans hostage after deposing the shah, and the attacks against the U.S. continued into the present. Eighty-five percent of the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq in 2004 were furnished by Iran, according to Lt. General Moshe Ya'alon, former Israeli Defense chief of staff. Thirty thousand Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force were actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq; throughout the Afghanistan War, these same forces formed hunter-killer teams for the sole mission of killing U.S. soldiers, according to the 5th Special Forces command hierarchy.

And when will Iran's proxy "holy warriors" of Hezb'allah ever be brought to a day of reckoning for the murders of 283 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983? One must wonder over President Ronald Reagan's decision not to mount a swift retaliation -- the only real failure of his presidency.

Now it is surreal to see John Kerry as the chief negotiator striving to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, when this is the same radical antiwar activist who never met an enemy of the United States that he didn't like. Kerry should be criminally charged for not registering as an Iranian agent, because he advocated giving Iran nuclear fuel during the first presidential debate in 2004, as "a test" of Iran's "true intentions." And this is especially egregious in light of Hassan Nemazee, top Kerry fund-raiser and alleged "agent" for Iran, stating in a 2004 deposition that he "would not trust this regime [Iran] on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program."

Last week, Ruhollah Hossinian, a hard-line lawmaker, stated, "It [the JPA] practically tramples on Iran's enrichment rights." This is reminiscent of 2006, when the U.N. Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programs or face sanctions. On August 31, Iranian then-president Ahmadinejad, in a televised appearance, stated, "They should know that the Iranian nation will not let its rights be trampled on." And by March 2007, Iran had added 3,000 new centrifuges capable of manufacturing weapons-grade uranium to its facilities at Natanz.

The New York Times characterized the JPA as "a chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East," although it really entails virtually the exact same policies America has witnessed liberal Democrats employ for decades. In 1979, A.Q. Khan, a nuclear physicist, gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, under the careless watch of Zbigniew Brzezinski; Khan promptly proliferated this technology, first to North Korea, and then to Iran, along with blueprints of a Chinese-designed warhead. Madeleine Albright failed to halt Kim Jong-il's nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, and now we see Obama and Kerry falling in line with the advocates of appeasement.

What does it mean to Iran's mullahs that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to concede an Iranian "right" to enrich uranium? Absolutely nothing. The mullahs want nuclear weapons and a dominant position throughout the Middle East more than they desire peace and prosperity for their people, so no amount of sanctions will achieve a satisfactory result.

Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents. Iran's Shahab-4 missiles have a 2,500-mile range and can carry biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads. The destruction of these sites would seriously cripple Western power, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

How many times and in how many different ways do we have to hear Iran's leaders state their intent to destroy "the Great Satan" -- America -- and "the Little Satan" -- Israel -- before we take their words to heart?

Make no mistake. President Hassan Rouhani is not at all different from his predecessors, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he couches his statements in ambiguous and subtle nuances, ultimately he hopes to foist an Iranian Islamic nightmare on the world.

A few years after taking power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei said: "I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

The JPA is merely another delaying tactic for Iran's mullahs, who are just mere weeks away from seeing their goal come to fruition. And despite all the best efforts of those like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who asserts that "strong sanctions ... brought Iran to the table," Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.

The world stands at a critical crossroads, and unfortunately, the only real solution is a war to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and possibly remove a rogue regime from power -- one that should have been targeted long before Iraq or Afghanistan. Rife with cohorts to the jihadists desiring negotiations, no matter the cost, the Obama administration will not answer this call, and Iran fully realizes this due to Obama's "red line" failure with Syria. The weight of this solution, unfairly and even more unfortunately, sits on the shoulders of Israel.

In the early 1930s, many viewed Hitler's Mein Kampf as just rhetoric, although he clearly had laid out his program to exterminate the Jews. Sixty-one million deaths, including six million Jews, lay at the feet of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement plan, because, as so eloquently stated by Winston Churchill, the world lacked the "democratic courage, intellectual honesty, and willingness to act." Let America and the world not make this same mistake again with Iran.